[Patients' satisfaction and waiting time in oncology day care centers in Champagne-Ardenne]. / Programme d'évaluation de l'administration des chimiothérapies en hôpital de jour en Champagne-Ardenne (PEACH) : satisfaction et délais d'attente des patients.

AIM: Quality of life of patients suffering from cancer may be influenced by the way healthcare is organized and by patient experiences. Nowadays, chemotherapy is often provided in day care centers. This study aimed to assess patient waiting time and satisfaction in oncology day care centers in Champagne-Ardenne, France. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey involved all patients receiving ambulatory chemotherapy during a one-week period in day care centers of Champagne-Ardenne public and private healthcare institutions participating in the study. Sociodemographic, medical and outpatient data were collected. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Out-Patsat35 questionnaire. RESULTS: Eleven (out of 16) oncology day care centers and 441 patients participated in the study. Most of the patients were women (n=252, 57.1%) and the mean age was 61±12 years. The mean satisfaction score was 82±14 (out of 100) and the mean waiting time between the assigned appointment time and administration of chemotherapy was 97±60 min. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that waiting times are important. However, patients are satisfied with the healthcare organization, especially regarding nursing support. Early preparation of chemotherapy could improve these parameters.

Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma and discrimination in the medium and long term: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Most research on interventions to counter stigma and discrimination has focused on short-term outcomes and has been conducted in high-income settings. AIMS: To synthesise what is known globally about effective interventions to reduce mental illness-based stigma and discrimination, in relation first to effectiveness in the medium and long term (minimum 4 weeks), and second to interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHOD: We searched six databases from 1980 to 2013 and conducted a multi-language Google search for quantitative studies addressing the research questions. Effect sizes were calculated from eligible studies where possible, and narrative syntheses conducted. Subgroup analysis compared interventions with and without social contact. RESULTS: Eighty studies (n = 422 653) were included in the review. For studies with medium or long-term follow-up (72, of which 21 had calculable effect sizes) median standardised mean differences were 0.54 for knowledge and -0.26 for stigmatising attitudes. Those containing social contact (direct or indirect) were not more effective than those without. The 11 LMIC studies were all from middle-income countries. Effect sizes were rarely calculable for behavioural outcomes or in LMIC studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is modest evidence for the effectiveness of anti-stigma interventions beyond 4 weeks follow-up in terms of increasing knowledge and reducing stigmatising attitudes. Evidence does not support the view that social contact is the more effective type of intervention for improving attitudes in the medium to long term. Methodologically strong research is needed on which to base decisions on investment in stigma-reducing interventions.